Add a new comment

Thanks, Steve! I have access to that dataset and can remove the doubtful flagged names if that is your recommendation. And if you have new data sources to suggest, we can also add those.

**That goes for all of you*** Do you know of a great data source we should be using in TraitBank? Note that we can only host data if permissible according to the terms of use. If you're not sure, point us to it and we can check it out. Also, digital is better than paper and structured databases or tables are better still!

I just got the newsletter about TraitBank, which is nice, but there are some inaccuracies. How are traits edited? For "bioluminescence", all of the taxa listed by Herring 1987 are included in TraitBank, but in that paper, the names not in italics are from doubtful reports. A subtle but important point, and those taxa should *not* be listed as bioluminescent. There are also more recent references that include additions to the list of bioluminescent species. Finally it might be good to capture as an attribute which species are bioluminescent due to bacterial symbionts, which is also listed in Herring 1987.

@Matthew A. Birk: We urgently need to do another ToLWeb harvest, so we can get all of the recent contributions from Dick Young, Michael Vecchione, and collaborators. I'll see if we can get this done within the next few weeks. If you want to help filling gaps in higher level cephalopod pages, you may want to check what's on ToLWeb. All content that is released under a compatible creative commons license should make its way to EOL soon, but we won't be able to import ToLWeb pages that are All Rights Reserved. The license for each page is listed at the bottom, e.g.: http://tolweb.org/Enoploteuthidae/19634#AboutThisPage If you could focus on groups that are either not covered on ToLWeb or have All Rights Reserved pages, that would be great. Thanks for your contributions. Let me know if you need any additional information.

@Matthew A. Birk: Hi - welcome. I think that's a question for @Katja Schulz. I'm generally keen to get content (images, text etc) trusted, although I can't see any images on http://eol.org/collections/23073 at the moment. What would be useful is a way of filtering http://eol.org/collections/55422 by taxonomic group, to see if there are any cephalopod taxa flagged up for particular attention. I don't know of any way to do this, though. Maybe others do?

I am a new curator here and am excited to serve by helping provide quality content to the public. Question: how much should I focus on improving higher level taxonomic groupings vs. specific species pages. I have read elsewhere that ToLWeb is focusing more on higher taxonomic groups and EOL will focus on species (http://tolweb.org/tree/home.pages/toleol.html). Is this an accurate approach for the majority of curators? I ask because I noticed that pages for higher level taxa in my taxon of expertise (cephalopods) is pretty lacking, but I want to focus effort on areas that will be most useful for EOL and the public.

@Michаel Frаnkis: The supplier (NBII) is not an active project anymore, so there's nobody on their end to update the data. This was a one-time salvage of the open access portion of their media collection. I didn't realize you could id this image to species. In that case, it may be worth adding a trusted taxon association for J. asheii. The problems with the coordinates are documented in the comments now.

A typo in the scientific name of this item has created a superfluous EoL page: http://eol.org/data_objects/26486969 Should of course be Juniperus sp., not Juniper sp.; for species, it is Juniperus ashei The latitude and longitude given are also incorrect (in the sea off west Africa, not in Texas!!)

@Yan Wong: Good question, Yan. It's rare for partners to elect not to post a source url, but it's not required, so we do have a few media like that. In the attribution section, only license and owner (or Public Domain designation) are required.

@Katja Schulz: Thanks Katya. Dromius univestis isn't IRMNG as far as I can tell, only GBIF, but perhaps what you said also applies to GBIF. Also the last example I gave is a case where another source (biolib.cz) has the data too, but the IRMNG name still isn't imported, but maybe the biolib import happened after the IRMNG one? Incidentally, I'm hitting these when trying to map OpenTree IDs to EoL page IDs (http://yanwong.me/?page_id=1268)

@Yan Wong: Sorry for the late reply. Had to do some research to figure this out. I think these are probably IRMNG names that don't have a taxonomicStatus, so we don't know if they are valid/accepted names or synonyms. There are over 300,000 of these names in IRMNG, and we are importing them only if we already have the name from another source.